CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FACTS

Ms. Cris Ericson thanks for your courage and patriotism. God bless youCLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS THAT HE ALLEGEDLY HAS A
DUTY TO PROVIDE VOTERS BECAUSE HIS “CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH” SHOWS
THIS LEGAL NOTICE IN TINY PRINT IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER, “[HRS
338-13(b), 338-19].Ms. Cris Ericson, registered voter and
resident of the State of Vermont, believes that President Barack Hussein
Obama has a legal DUTY to provide voters with material facts that he is
currently allegedly fraudulently concealing.
Ms. Ericson believes that the legal DUTY is required by the legal
notice on his “Certification of Live Birth” which, in the lower right
hand corner, in tiny fine print, states: [HRS 338-13(b), 33819].
Ms. Ericson is hoping to find an attorney licensed to practice law in
federal courts to file a class action lawsuit, PRO BONO, on behalf of
herself and other registered voters who want to know, and who need to
know, and who allegedly have a legal right to know exactly what the
material facts are that are represented by the legal notice: [HRS
338-13(b), 338-19]
The material facts represented by this legal notice might be the
facts that prove that President Barack Hussein Obama has to step down
from Office on the basis that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, and turn
the keys to the White House over to Vice President Joe Biden.
Ms. Cris Ericson believes that the material facts that the legal
notice represents may provide legal cause of action to allegedly prove
continuing fraud in a fiduciary capacity against taxpayers and voters by
President Barack Hussein Obama, former Vice President Dick Cheney, and
each and every member of the United States Congress.
racy by asking for members of Congress to vote without informed
consent, and conspiracy to issue forth certified votes as fraudulent
conveyances.
It is apparently legal for registered voters and taxpayers to sue the
United States government and its officers under 28 USCS Section 1491
Claims against the United States.http://ucfc.uscourts.gov Federal Claims Court
http://uscode.house.gov/searchcriteria.shtml online law library
28 USCS, Section 1491 (a)(1) The United States Court of Federal
Claims shall have jurisdiction to render judgment upon any claim against
the United States founded either upon the Constitution or any Act of
Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any
express or implied contract with the United States. (2) To provide an
entire remedy and to complete the relief afforded by the judgment, the
Court may, as an incident of and collateral to any such judgement, issue
orders directing restoration to office or position, placement in
appropriate duty or retirement status, and correction of applicable
records, and such orders may be issued to any appropriate official of
the United States. In any case within its jurisdiction, the Court shall
have the power to remand appropriate matters to any administrative or
executive body or official with such direction as it may deem proper and
just.
“Court of Federal Claims is Article I Court of limited jurisdiction
created by Congress as forum where private parties could sue government
for non-tort money claims, where claims would otherwise be barred by
sovereign immunity.” Slovacek v United States (1998) 40 Fed Cl 828, 98-1
USTC 50397, 81 AFTR 2d 98-1859.
“Congress created Court of Federal Claims to afford individuals forum
to bring specific claims against government; while placing
jurisdictional limits upon Court, Congress did not intend those
jurisdictional limits to be manipulated to prevent claimant from
recovering compensation against government.” Davis v United States
(1996) 35 Fed Cl 392.
“Jurisdiction under 28 USCS Section 1491 applies only to contracts
either express or implied in fact, not implied in law, where (1)
agreement implied in fact is founded upon meeting of minds, which,
although not embodied in express contract, is inferred from conduct of
parties showing their tacit understanding, while (2) by contrast,
agreement implied in law is fiction of law where promise is imputed to
perform legal duty.” Hercules Inc. v United States (1996, US) 134 L Ed
2d 47, 116 S Ct 981, 96 CDOS 1403, 96 Daily Journal DAR 2395, 40 CCF
76894, 9 FLW Fed S 442.
In President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” you
can see, in the lower right hand corner, the legal notice: [HRS
338-13(b), 338-19] and then please go to http://www.capitol.hawaii.govand on the right hand click on Hawaii Revised Statutes.
HRS 338-19 is a birth certificate issued as a “copy” relying on
documents that were too old to be used, and or otherwise in such
condition that they could not be used. The statute is contradictory
because if the documents were too old or in too poor a condition to be
used to certify, then why did the State of Hawaii issue a “copy” that
was based on possibly non-legible material? It makes no common sense.
The Statute is contradictory, overly vague, overly broad and therefore
unconstitutional.
HRS 338-13(b) is subject to the requirements of HRS 338-16, HRS
338-17 and HRS 338-18. These are for birth certificates that are issued
one year or more after birth, and for certificates that have been
altered, and/or both. This set of statutes also gives a party legal
standing to request a judicial determination of the validity of the
birth certificate because it was issued one year or more after birth
and/or altered.
“Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear claims against
States or their Agencies except where States or their Agencies acted as
agents of United States.” Hassan v United States (1998) 41 Fed CL 149.
Clearly, the State of Hawaii and the Agency of the Department of
Health of Hawaii, have acted as agents of the United States Congress,
former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Hussein Obama
because the Governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, sealed President Barack
Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate and all underlying
information upon which the “Certification of Live Birth” was issued. The
“Certification of Live Birth” is just a “short form” certificate with
none of the information that a regular “long form birth certificate”
has.
“Plaintiff’s federal tort claim against government is not dismissed
prior to discovery on grounds that discretionary function exception of
28 USCS Section 2680(a) applied, because factual issues and evidence to
support those issues are not presently known to plaintiff, and dismissal
of action prior to discovery would be premature and unduly harsh.”
Fanoele v United States (1995, DC Kan) 898 F Supp 822.
(1) The United States Congress failed to do their duty to obtain any
long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama before certifying
the Electoral College Votes.
(2) Former Vice President Dick Cheney failed to do his duty to ask for objections to the Electoral College vote.
(3) President Barack Hussein Obama has failed to do his duty to release
the information upon which statutes HRS 338-13(b) {which is subject to
the requirements of 338-16, 338-17, 338-18} and 338-19 were legally
required to be noticed on his “Certification of Live Birth”.
(4) All of the Judges and Justices in State and Federal Courts,
including the Supreme Court of the United States, where previous
plaintiffs have tried various motions to compel material facts and
subpoena Barack Hussein Obama’s original long form birth certificate,
have denied all such actions, and therefore, the legal jurisdiction and
the legal standing rests with the United States Court of Federal Claims;
either that or the Judges and Justices are in conspiracy to conceal
material facts from voters and taxpayers.
(5) The Hawaii “Certification of Live Birth” of Barack Hussein Obama was
issued one year or more after he was born, and/or altered. We, the
people, need to know why. The “Certification of Live Birth” also gives a
legal notice: (Rev. 11/01) which is absolute proof that Barack Hussein
Obama received this “Certification of Live Birth” after he was already
40 years old. What took him so long? Why did he receive this
“Certification of Live Birth” which was issued when he was 40 years old,
or older, after September 11, 2001, the Terrorist Attack on the United
States of America? Where was he living during the Terrorist Attack on
the United States of America and why did he need to get a “Certification
of Live Birth” after the attack, and how much was it altered from the
original long form birth certificate?WE, the PEOPLE, NEED TO KNOW!

Hawaii has different standards for evidence than Federal Rules of Evidence.
“District Court did not abuse its discretion in applying Federal
Rules of Evidence rather than Hawaii Health Department Rules in finding
results of intoxilizer test admissible under public records and reports
exception to hearsay rule of Rule 803(6)(8).” United States v De Water
(1998, CA9 HAWAII) 846 F2d 528, 25 Fed Rules Evid Serv 748.
President Barack Hussein Obama now needs to be held to the standards
of Federal Rules of Evidence because he now holds the Office of the
President of the United States of America, and his “Certification of
Live Birth” should now be required to be determined if it can, or can
not, withstand federal scrutiny.
Ms. Cris Ericson would like to encourage voters and taxpayers to join
her in a Class Action Lawsuit to subpoena the material facts, the
original long form birth certificate of Barack Hussein Obama in the
United States Court of Federal Claims. She needs a Pro Bono attorney.
Ms. Cris Ericson http://crisericson.com
879 Church Street, Chester, Vermont 05143-9375 (802)875-4038 Please send a certified return receipt letter.
Thank you and God Bless America!

32 Responses to “CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF FACTS”

Daniel Smith// Jan 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Read or Glance at many of the Laws on Hawaii Statutes:http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htmhttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of lawshttp://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time
prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth
shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the
department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the
administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or
physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance
at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
The birth facility shall make available to the department
appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance
with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8;
am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
Case Notes
Compulsory reporting not objectionable. 466 F. Supp. 714.
§338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither
parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in
section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of
the department of health shall secure the necessary information from
any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the
certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a
supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original
certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the
certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report
shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.” [L 1949, c 327, §10;
RL 1955, §57-9; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-6]
§338-15 Late or altered certificates. A person born in the State
may file or amend a certificate after the time prescribed, upon
submitting proof as required by rules adopted by the department of
health. Certificates registered after the time prescribed for filing by
the rules of the department of health shall be registered subject to
any evidentiary requirements that the department adopts by rule to
substantiate the alleged facts of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §19; RL 1955,
§57-18; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-15; am L 1972, c 66, §1(1);
am L 1997, c 305, §2]
Attorney General Opinions
Section provides for the alteration of only birth certificates. Att. Gen. Op. 84-14.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon
application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the
director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or
minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health
that the legal parents of such individual while living without the
Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of
Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director
of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The
director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that
he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent
applications for birth certificates and to require any further
information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth
certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be
established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
§338-19 Photostatic or typewritten copies of records. The
department of health is authorized to prepare typewritten, photostatic,
or microphotographic copies of any records and files in its office,
which by reason of age, usage, or otherwise are in such condition that
they can no longer be conveniently consulted or used without danger of
serious injury or destruction thereof, and to certify to the correctness
of such copies. The typewritten, photostatic, or microphotographic
copies shall be competent evidence in all courts of the State with like
force and effect as the original. [L 1949, c 327, §23; RL 1955, §57-22;
am L 1957, c 8, §1; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-19]
§338-20.5 Adoption; foreign born persons. (a) The department of
health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born
in a foreign country and for whom a final decree of adoption has been
entered in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hawaii, when it receives
the following:
(1) A properly certified copy of the adoption decree, or
certified abstract thereof on a form approved by the department; and
(2) A copy of any investigatory report and recommendation which
may have been prepared by the director of social services; and
(3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following:
(A) Date of assumption of custody;
(B) Sex;
(C) Color or race;
(D) Approximate age of child;
(E) Name and address of the person or persons adopting said child;
(F) Name given to child by adoptive parent or parents;
(G) True or probable country of birth.
The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the
place of birth, and the date of birth shall be determined by
approximation. This report shall constitute an original certificate of
birth; and
(4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.
(b) After preparation of the new certificate of birth in the
new name of the adopted person, the department of health shall seal and
file the certified copy of the adoptive decree, the investigatory report
and recommendation of the director of human services if any, the report
constituting the original certificate of birth, and the request for a
new certificate of birth. The sealed documents may be opened by the
department only by an order of a court of record or when requested in
accordance with section 578-14.5 or 578-15. The new certificate of
birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that
the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the
child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents. [L 1979, c 203,
§3; am L 1990, c 338, §3]
§338-41 Issuance; procedure. (a) The department of health may make
regulations respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and
certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to
Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary and the regulations, when
approved and made in accordance with chapter 91, shall have the force of
law. The department shall furnish the form of the certificates and
copies made therefrom.
(b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under
or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall
be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. [L 1911, c 96, §1;
am L 1923, c 246, §1; RL 1925, §196; am L 1927, c 202, §1; RL 1935,
§7610; RL 1945, §12910; am L 1951, c 132, §1; RL 1955, §57-40; am L Sp
1959 2d, c 1, §9; am L 1965, c 96, §39; HRS §338-41; am L 1970, c 11,
§1; am L 1972, c 66, §1(4)]
Case Notes
Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification. 4 U.S.D.C. Haw. 258.
Certificate not controlling upon U.S. immigration officials re admission of Chinese. 217 F. 48; 35 Op. U.S. Att. Gen. 69.
(Some of these statutes should be included in the Lawsuit’s to show how simple it was to get a Hawaii BC) Dan

njresident// Jan 28, 2009 at 6:30 pm

What do we do if we want to join the class action suit? Just send her a certified letter?

Kim// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Make him pay back all campaign contributions to all plaintiffs

da verg// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm

well, that sort of gets around the “standing” issue!
how will barry contort the law to get around this challenge? No jurisdiction?

da verg// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:24 pm

you need to add that the democratic national committee also
complicit in cover up and fraud, by failing to do their due diligence
same with nancy pelosi, who signed the certs.
the same with the sec. of states by failing to honor their sworn
oaths to uphold the constitution and failing to respond to many requests
by voters to provide information. (this last sentence applies to above
paragraphs)
federal election finance committee for failing to verify obama’s
eligibility and investigate many fraudelent donations because obama
allegedely lied.
howard dean and diane feinstein as members of the DNC
and that group that claims to check out the eligibility of candidates
for the national debates, i forget their name off the top of my head.
submitted for consideration , as supplemental information.
but then again, i am not an attorney, so take with what i post with grain of salt and have it reviewed by legal beagles.

da verg// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:31 pm

alos, need wiggle room in suit to ask for
barry’s college documents
and
state dept. passport information
as supplemental supporting documents
just a suggestion, to get the complete picture.
again, i am not an attorney….

da verg// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm

well leave out the SOSs , makes it too messy.

d// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:50 pm

It’s about time, where do I sign up?

d// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:57 pm

Could someone in the legal field draws up an online petition for
all those who would to join the lawsuit? We can start gathering
signatures.

Natural Born Citizen// Jan 28, 2009 at 8:59 pm

This legal notice has some weak points that need to be tweaked or addressed:
The US Constitution does not explicitly forbid ineligible candidates
from running for the office of president, but arranges that objectsion
to eligibility be made at time of the certification of the Electoral
College Vote.
The question is then, does anyone in particular have a duty to vet the candidates.
The best argument is founded on the strongest reason.
Since no one congressman is so bound, but the joint session is
constitutional provided with the ability to do so, the claim of
dereliction of duty is best made by a claim that the Joint Session
members, that is the entire Congress, being duely informed of the issues
(cf. restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.org which wrote every member of
Congress and informed them by certified mail for the evidence) that they
failed in their duty to vet Obama.
The standing in the Federal Court of claims also seems to be
debatable. The court was established for personal damages, where there
is an expressed or implied strict duty. Suing anyone else but the
members of the Joint Session would be, I fear, dismissed on the grounds
of no strict duty.
Also, the VT resident seems to imply the posted Certificatino of Live
Birth, was presented by Obama, but its provenance is doubtful and he
could easily seek to dismiss on the grounds that he had nothing to do
with the posted forgery.
It is not the COLB which gives rise to the failure to do the duty,
but the public admission by Obama that his father was a British subject
at the time of his birth, and that his father never became a US citizen,
knowledge of which was had by all the Congress, combined with the
information regarding the natural born citizen clause, pubilcally knows
in the Senate hearings from 2004, and the necessity of having 2 citizen
parents, pubicly witnesses to by the otherwise erroneous Senate Resolute
511 of last June.

Marcia// Jan 28, 2009 at 9:32 pm

My Stepfather was Clerk of the US Court of Claims and thate the
Commisiners where sent out to different states to hear complaints to
forward to ny stepfather for calendar requests that they had merit.
He has died so I have no connection but I am fulling interested in
the class action. Obama in putting our country in a world of debt that
our grandchilen will never get out of paying. He wants to destroy this
country.

Sign me up;
Send info on just how to be included in the class action.
Gordon

Lani// Jan 28, 2009 at 9:49 pm

I don’t get it. The statute is just referenced to show that it is
a copy of a birth certificate. How does that make it his “legal duty”
to produce this COLB? I mean, I wished he would, but I don’t understand
Ms. Ericson’s reasoning that the referenced Statutes pertaining to how,
and when a copy of a certificate is issued has any bearing. What am I
missing?

IBANEZ// Jan 28, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Ms Cris ERICSSON
I am sure that the Governor Of HAWAII LINGLEY, Mrs FUKINO and the
Supreme Court will show you where exactely in the Certification of Live
Birth of the Internet, the voters and tax payers must watch to read;
B.O …………American Natural Born Citizen.
Concerning John Mc CAIN the voters and tax payers are loyaly
informed by the 110th US Congress N°511 Senate Résolution: “John McCAIN
Is a Natural Born Citizen under the US Const. ART II section 1″
The soil don’t makes the Natural Born Citizenship but naturally an American father and an American mother.

Ted// Jan 29, 2009 at 1:57 am

Obama says his “recovery plan will include UNPRECEDENTED measures
that will allow the American people to hold [his] administration
ACCOUNTABLE” yet Obama refuses to be held ACCOUNTABLE to the same
American people for his UNPRECEDENTED refusal to show his actual birth
certificate.

Kim// Jan 29, 2009 at 6:40 am

Please read what Natural Born Citizen (Leo Donofrio) wrote about
this idea in this blog. With all the disappointments so far with the all
the rest of the lawsuits, we need to go after the right people with the
right ammo.

old glory// Jan 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm

IXQUICK Search Engine(Netherlands) doesn’t record your searches.

Ted// Jan 29, 2009 at 7:32 pm

OK, OK, OK, enough already, I can’t take any more hoaxes: First
we have Al Gore’s global warming, next comes Obama being a
constitutionally qualified President, followed by Obama’s stimulus plan,
but now we have Robert Reich telling us why we need stronger unions.
Are we heading for Saturday Night Live 24/7?

Clyde Shaulis// Jan 29, 2009 at 11:18 pm

You may want to look at making this a UCC case. If you do this
right - The jury is chosen by folks like us. We choose the judge. No one
in Congress/ Supreme Court/ or other politicians will have standing.
This would be true “people’s court”.http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/
COMMERCIAL LIEN STRATEGY:
A “PRESIDENTIAL” OPINION
by Alfred Adask
[Reprinted with permission from The AntiShyster magazine, P.O. Box
540786, Dallas, Texas, 75354-0786 — annual subscription (6 issues) $25.
This article appeared in Volume 3, No. 1 - Jan/Feb 1993]
In the last issue of the AntiShyster, we began to explore a new
Commercial Lien Strategy (CLS) whereby common citizens, without the aid
of lawyers or the courts, can induce government officials to actually
obey the laws they have sworn to uphold.
In brief, the CLS works like this:
1. Most people know that liens can be filed on another person’s
property based on a financial debt (if I owe you $10,000 and refuse to
pay, you can file a lien on my property for the amount of that debt).
However, few people realize that Commercial Liens can also be filed
based on a contractual duty or obligation. For example - suppose I
contract to put a roof on your house, but fail to do so. Although I
don’t owe you any money, I do owe you a contractuaI duty to build the
roof. Based on that duty, you could theoretically file a Commercial Lien
on my property as a device to compel me to complete my contractual
duty/obligation to build your roof.)
2. When government officials take an Oath of Office to “uphold and
defend the Constitution of the United States” (and/or Texas, New York,
Utah, etc.), they enter into a specific performance contract with We the
People. By virtue of their Oath of Office, government officials assume a
contractual duty or obligation to obey the law!
3. If a government official who has sworn (i.e, contracted) to obey
the law, breaks or ignores any law he’s sworn to “uphold”, common
citizens can file a Commercial Lien on his property that will paralyze
his ability to buy, sell, or lease any property and ruin his credit
rating until he corrects his breach of contract and once again obeys the
law. For example, suppose a judge arbitrarily denies you some Right
guaranteed in the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold — if he does, you
can file a Commercial Lien on his property to compel his compliance with
his contractual oath.
Because the Commercial Lien is a non-judicial instrument, there is no
judge or court involved in the filing procedure who could dismiss the
lien and thereby protect government officials who have broken the law.
Although we are still unable to sue city hall (and the crooks that
reside therein), it looks like we can nevertheless “lien on ‘em”.
The CLS appears to be simple, inexpensive and nearly perfect for
common people and pro se’s. All they have to do is properly prepare a
Commercial Lien against the offending government official, have it
notarized, pay a modest filing fee and file it with one or more County
Clerks. With just a little time, a little research, and a little money,
the average person is capable of compelling government officials to
actually obey the law! It’s almost unheard of. The last time the People
successfully compelled corrupt government officials to actually obey the
law was during the American Revolution — and that was done at the point
of a sword. The CLS may be similarly powerful, but it’s done at the
point of a pen.
THE $64 QUESTION
Clearly, if the Commercial Lien Strategy is lawful, its ability to
drive corruption and lawlessness from our government may be limitless.
But that’s the critical question: Is the Commercial Lien strategy truly
lawful? The question is important because if the CLS is unlawful, any
pro se who tries this strategy could wind up being sanctioned, fined, or
even jailed.
The CLS certainly sounds lawful, and I know of several examples where
the CLS has been used on government officials with apparent success.
Still, it’s a new strategy, and despite the optimistic opinions of some
very knowledgeable pro se’s, it’s too early to tell for sure if the CLS
is really lawful. Part of the problem is that no matter how brilliant
some pro se’s may be, their legal theories are often flawed, incomplete,
or absolutely wrong.
If only we could get a competent licensed lawyer to give us a
positive opinion on the lawfulness of the CLS — then we might feel more
confident about applying the strategy. But how could we get a truly
competent lawyer to analyze the CLS on our behalf? Even if we could
afford the cost, how could we trust a lawyer to give us an honest
opinion concerning a strategy that might ultimately shake the whole
government?
The answer, of course, is that we (pro se’s, etc) can’t trust a
lawyer’s opinion on the CLS. But just because the lawyers might not be
honest with us doesn’t mean that skilled lawyers might not offer honest
opinions on the CLS to someone else like, oh, maybe some judges and
government officials who’ve been slapped with the CLS. And guess what?
That’s just what’s happened.
SWORN & SUBSCRIBED
How’d you like to see a sworn opinion on the CLS from the president
of the Florida bar? Sound unlikely? Sound impossible? Well, we got it.
I haven’t seen all the background documents, but it appears that Mr.
Nelson E. Starr (a pro se litigant in Case No. 92-8051-CIV- RYSKAMP, US
Dist. Ct. of the South. Dist. Florida) filed Commercial Liens on several
top government officials and federal judges. Apparently, the defendants
(government officials and judges) then asked Mr. Alan T. Dimond,
president of the Florida Bar, to examine Mr. Starr’s Commercial Lien and
express his opinion of the lien’s legality in a sworn affidavit.
Someone sent me a photocopy.
In the first five paragraphs of his affidavit, Mr. Dimond outlines
his considerable background as a lawyer. Then, in the last two
paragraphs, he swears under oath that:
“6. I have reviewed a document entitled “A Security (15 U.S.C.) Claim
of Commercial Lien and Affidavit,” recorded at Official Record Book
7358 [the last digit in this number wasn’t quite clear in the photocopy;
it might be “7355″] at pages 703-705, in the Official Records of Palm
Beach County, Florida, on August 13, 1992. I note that the document
names a number of public figures including the Attorney General of the
United States, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of
Florida, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, …, the Chief
United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida,
…, [another] United States District Court Judge for the Southern
District of Florida, and others at least one of whom is participating as
counsel for the United States in this case.”
“7. I have been told by counsel for the United States that the
Security Claim of Commercial Lien and Affidavit has no basis in fact or
law and is a creation of one of the litigants herein. In my 24 years of
experience, I have never seen or heard of any Lien such as those that
were filed relative to this matter. Assuming the truth of this
representation, and based on my experience in civic and bar activities
and as a practicing lawyer and as the president of The Florida Bar, it
is my opinion that the document causes irreparable harm to the system of
the administration of justice. While some of the harm may be
compensable at law, no degree of compensation will adequately remedy the
damage to the appearance of integrity of those named and of the system
of the administration of justice. In my opinion, the filing of this type
of lien is a direct attack in the justice system and on the general
reputations of those named in the ‘lien’. It may negatively impact on
the financial credit rating of those individuals. It will probably have a
negative impact on their willingness to continue to serve as
representatives of the United States. And, it constitutes an abuse of
civil process that cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law.”
(signed) Alan T. Dimond;
Sworn to and subscribed before me
this 7th day of October, 1992. He is
personally known to me and did take
an oath. Notary: H. Valdes
LINE BY LINE
Damn.
Dimond’s affidavit was apparently intended to help defend the
government officials, but if you stop to reread it, line by line, you’ll
see that one of the nation’s premier lawyers (president of the Florida
bar) pretty much says the Commercial Lien’s got the defendants by the
short hairs.
But before you reread Dimond’s sworn statement, consider some of the
background information. First, Mr. Dimond is a lawyer. His stock in
trade are words. Linguistic precision is everything in law. Second, he
was asked to provide an opinion in defense of several very powerful
government officials and federal judges. Third, he was
asked to present his opinion under oath.
Conclusions: 1) Mr. Dimond’s purpose was to prove the CLS was
unlawful; 2) he should have done some considerable research into the CLS
to prove it’s unlawful; and 3) he must have chosen the words used in
his affidavit very carefully.
Point: If Mr. Dimond writes very carefully, we must read very carefully.
For example, Dimond opens paragraph 7 with, “I have been told by
counsel for the United States that the Security Claim of Commercial Lien
and Affidavit has no basis in fact or law…”
ANALYSIS: Very strange. The defendant judges and government officials
presumably sought attorney Dimond’s personal affidavit because either
1) he’s recognized as a legal genius whose opinions carry great
technical weight, or 2) he’s recognized as a legal whore who’ll say
anything for anyone (if the price is right) but whose opinion still
carries great political weight by virtue of his status as Florida bar
president.
Curiously, lawyer Dimond does not say the Commercial Lien is unlawful
— he merely says he’s “been told it has no basis in fact or law” by
someone else. Hell, any first year law student can tell you his second
hand opinion is essentially hearsay and, as such, almost meaningless in
court.
Dimond continues, saying “Assuming the truth of this representation
[that the lien “has no basis if fact or law”]…” Assuming? Are we to
“assume” lawyer Dimond didn’t bother to research the issue himself and
prefers to base his sworn testimony, on behalf of some of the most
powerful government officials in the country, on nothing but hearsay?
By attributing the opinion of the Commercial Lien’s lawfulness to an
unnamed “counsel of the United States” and “assuming” that opinion is
valid, attorney Dimond is ducking personal responsibility for a
statement that implies (but never declares) that the CLS is unlawful.
Under oath, Dimond sounds strangely unconvinced that the CLS is truly
“without basis in fact or law”.
Dimond’s evasiveness is telling. The powerful defendants must have
sought Dimond’s opinion because they expected him to rescue them with a
brilliant denial of the lien’s lawfulness. If Dimond didn’t take time to
analyze the lien’s lawfulness and merely dashed out an affidavit on a
moment’s notice as a sort of “political favor” to the powerful
defendants, why didn’t he “go the distance” and swear that, based on all
his years of experience, he knew the CLS was absolutely worthless? The
only reason I can imagine is that something in the CLS scares him more
than the government officials who sought his help. (Could it be that he
was scared that if he lied under oath, that someone would file a
Commercial Lien on him?)
On the other hand, if Dimond thoroughly analyzed the lien (as we can
expect from a bar president handling a very hot issue for several very
powerful government officials), why didn’t he “go the distance” and
swear under oath that he knew the lien was worthless? I can imagine only
one explanation — Dimond suspects the Commercial Lien strategy is
lawful.
Why else would Dimond base his affidavit on inadmissible hearsay and
unprofessional “personal experience”, rather than hard, professional
research in a law library? Are we to believe that the president of the
Florida bar, a member of a substantial law firm, a recognized
professional in his field, didn’t bother to crack open a single law book
to find evidence that the CLS is unlawful? Six important federal
officials (people who can play a serious role in Dimond’s financial and
political future) asked for his help, and the best he can do is vaguely
recollect that “I ain’t nevah seen nuthin’ lahk it, nevah befo’”?
Pretty hard to believe.
A more plausible scenario would be that Dimond did his level best to
please the powerful defendants by digging through the law library for
statutes and case law that proved the CLS invalid, but failed to find
anything. If Dimond researched the CLS, but couldn’t prove it unlawful,
he’d have to concede it was lawful. Perhaps, he couldn’t reference his
own opinion under oath since, based on his legal research, he knew the
CLS was valid. Therefore, Dimond could only support the defendants by
skating around the issue with an affidavit based on hearsay and
“assumptions” rather than facts and law.
Next, Dimond notes that the CLS “is a creation of one of the
litigants herein. In my 24 years of experience, I have never seen or
heard of any [such] ‘lien’…”
ANALYSIS: Roughly correct, but irrelevant. The CLS is a recent
innovation previously unknown to the lawyers and legal system. But
labeling the CLS as a “creation” hints that it’s been spawned out of
some twisted pro se litigant’s delusions rather than the law, that the
CLS is without legal and lawful foundation, and is therefore unlawful.
But that’s just Dimond’s words. If I were spinning those words, I
wouldn’t say the lien’s a new “creation”. I’d say it’s a new
“application” and thereby imply the Commercial Lien has a lawful
foundation, and as such, is probably lawful itself.
Further, just because Mr. Dimond has never seen such a lien in his
“24 years of experience” doesn’t prove a thing. How many lawyers had
seen a law that blacks could ride in the front of an Alabama bus prior
to the 1964 Civil Rights Act? How many lawyers had seen a Constitutional
“right to privacy” before the U.S. Supreme Court found it in Roe v.
Wade? The law, as lawyers like to remind us, is constantly changing,
growing, evolving. Well, on behalf of “We, the Mammals”, I’d like to
welcome “You, the Dinosaur Lawyers” to a brand new wrinkle in the
“theory of evolution”: the CLS is about to render government corruption
almost extinct.
It’s irrelevant whether Dimond’s ever seen the CLS before. He hasn’t
seen the dark side of the moon, either, but it’s there. The real point
to Dimond’s statement is that in all his experience, he’s never seen one
bit of evidence, precedent, statute, case law, or Constitutional
prohibition to say the Commercial Lien is illegal. If he’d seen or found
any evidence that the lien was illegal — anything at all — it would
certainly have been cited in his affidavit. Instead, the sworn affidavit
of the president of the Florida bar offers not one single citation to
support his apparent hope that the CLS is illegal.
OPEN SEASON
According to the U.S. Constitution, all powers not specifically
granted to government are reserved to the People. Which means that if
the laws don’t specifically say you can’t do something, you can do it
until the Congress legislates otherwise or the Supreme Court rules to
the contrary. Which means, the “new creation” of the Commercial Lien is
legal and lawful until law can be found or made to the contrary. Since
Mr. Dimond didn’t produce any previous law to prohibit the CLS, it
appears there’s no previous prohibition and the CLS should be lawful
until some future date when Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court says
otherwise. And that means, at least for now, it’s open season on corrupt
government officials.
Lawyer Dimond seems to agree. He points out that the CLS “…causes
irreparable harm to the system of the administration of justice.”
Oh dear me, NO! Not “irreparable harm” to the “system of
administration of justice” (not justice, itself). Oh, pulleeese!
ANYTHING but that!! Why…why, the very thought of it is enough to jus’
make me swoooon.
Well, better stock up on smelling salts, Scarlet, cuz if lawyer
Dimond’s right about the paucity of defenses and remedies against the
CLS, the entire government’s about to pass out cold.
Faced with the CLS’s “direct attack on…the general reputations of
those named in the `lien’”, and even though the CLS “may negatively
impact on their financial credit rating,” Dimond will only concede that
“some of damage may be compensable at law.”
“Some?” “May”? Hardly the optimistic prognosis the defendants had
hoped for. He’s equivocating. Mr. Dimond’s limp assessment of their
chances to sue to recover damages caused by the CLS should scare every
corrupt government official in the USA into packing his bags for Brazil.
And it gets worse (or better, depending on your point of view).
Even though Dimond claims the CLS is “an abuse of civil process”, he
nevertheless concludes that the Lien “cannot be adequately remedied by
an action at law.” Although Dimond does not absolutely say there’s
nothing government officials can do to protect themselves against the
Commercial Lien Strategy, he comes pretty close. At minimum, he’s
warning the government defendants that they’re in a losing proposition,
and even if some kind of later litigation “may” generate compensation
for “some” of their damages, that compensation will be, at best,
inadequate. In short, they’re going to lose more than they can ever hope
to recover, which means they’re gonna lose. Which means the Commercial
Lien Strategy is solid.
In fact, it appears so solid that Dimond predicts the CLS “will
probably have a negative impact on [corrupt government officials’]
willingness to continue to serve [steal] as representatives of the
United States”!
Reader, do you understand what you just read? The president of the
Florida bar has stopped just a few words short of saying the Commercial
Lien Strategy is so powerful it will probably chase corrupt officials
right out of government!
It’s one thing to read the theories and notions of paralegals, pro
se’s, and would-be writers like myself that fill the AntiShyster. We’ve
shared some good ideas on the CLS but, still, it’s hard to trust our
judgement. But when the president of the Florida state bar implicitly
agrees that the CLS is so strong that his best advice to government
officials is “RUN, YOU MUTHA’S! RUN!!!”, well, you gotta agree the
Commercial Lien Strategy looks a whole lot more reliable.
A word of caution: Although I interpret Mr. Dimond’s remarks as a
general commentary on the overall Commercial Lien Strategy, he was only
talking about a specific Commercial Lien which I have not seen or
published in the AntiShyster. Just because he was impressed by one
Commercial Lien does not mean all liens (including those published here)
are similarly formidable. No matter what I say, no matter what Mr.
Dimond says, you must do your own research, and personally confirm the
CLS before you start “liening on” government officials.
A word of celebration: It’s impossible to read Mr. Dimond’s sworn
opinion on the CLS without wanting to pass out the party hats and horns.
One of America’s premier lawyers is unable to declare that the
Commercial Lien Strategy is illegal or unlawful, can’t offer much hope
that those who are “liened on” will be able to sue to recover for
damages, and implicitly concedes that those who properly file Commercial
Liens aren’t likely to be sued for damages.
It’s too early to break out the champagne, but it looks like we’ve got a chance to take back our government.
Cheers.

Steve// Jan 29, 2009 at 11:46 pm

On Phil Berg’s website, we find Ron Polarik’s analysis of the
published photographs of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. The
analysis consists of five web pages, the first of which can be found
here:http://www.obamacrimes.com/thebirthcertificate.html
Click the “next” button at the bottom of each web page, to proceed to the next web page.
In his analysis, Polarik shows a couple of legitimate “Certification
of Live birth” sample images, for purpose of comparison with Obama’s
published Certification of Life Birth.
I notice that the code “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” appears at the
bottom right of all of Polarik’s samples. This leads me to suspect that
the code “[HRS 338-13(b), 338-19]” is merely a part of the form on which
the COLB is printed, and may not be pertinent to the source document(s)
from which the COLB information was derived.
Please check this out before devoting too much time in developing a class action lawsuit on the basis of this code.
Thanks, and keep up the good work.
- Steve

[…] - New Class Action Lawsuit against Obama for fraudulent concealment of […]

da verg// Jan 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm

I believe you now have some evidence to take this to fruition as
posted on rightsideoflife website, the defense presented this as portion
of their reason to dismiss, use it per your legal counsel, and good
luck with it! Find a friendly judge, move to Texas, Georgia, South
Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Mississippi, or some such place where
Constitutional minded judges exist, I don’t know if any exist in your
neck of the woods…..
1 President Obama has publicly produced a certified copy of a birth
certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu
Hawaii. See, e.g., Factcheck.org, “Born in the U.S.A.: The truth about
Obama’s birth certificate,” available at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
(concluding that the birth certificate is genuine, and noting a
contemporaneous birth announcement published in a Honolulu newspaper).
Hawaii officials have publicly verified that they have President Obama’s
“original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies
and procedures.” See “Certified,” Honolulu Star Bulletin, Oct. 31,
2008. This Court can take judicial notice of these public news reports.
See The Washington Post v. Robinson, 935 F.2d 282, 291 (D.C. Cir. 1991);
Agee v. Muskie, 629 F.2d 80, 81 n.1, 90 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Citing similarity with other lawsuits…

you know// Mar 1, 2009 at 2:43 am

Please download and then upload
my new blog
because it has DIGITAL PHOTOS OF THE LAWS
and
Google has removed it from their search engine.http://crisericson2010.blogspot.com
Ms. Cris Ericson
I tried to leave a comment with my name and it was blocked.

Could you help me. A man can do all things if he but wills them.
Help me! Help to find sites on the: Wall clock. I found only this - http://turbo-tax.biz/.
The last few months in seo has changed some with the use of social
media and how the se matrix took the seo keyword and took off with
seohounds and populated the. Hire an seo consultant fulltime or
outsource seo services. Thanks :mad:. Florence from Yemen.

Zahir// Aug 2, 2009 at 12:51 am

Disgusting. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest the
president was not born in Hawaii. Instead, there are mountains of
evidence that he was born precisely where he said he was. Everyone with
a RIGHT to see his records of birth have them and been satisfied. And
what is tossed against all this? Rumors, lies and fundamental
misstatements about the law and about how elections work. This isn’t
about evidence–it is about rage against a world that doesn’t do what
some people think it should do. Rather than admit they could possibly
be wrong about anything, they project all that emotional investment into
conspiracy theories and scapegoating. You have all your facts WRONG.
And not just about this.

tpgow// Aug 2, 2009 at 5:56 am

It’s not even about his birth certificate. He admits in his own
words in his book that his father was a british subject. Keyna was under
British rule at the time. According to the constitution you must have
been born of TWO natural born American citizens. So bye his own words
in his book he is not elgiable to hold the highest office in the USA>
So ask yout self WHO IS WRONG??????

James Downey// Feb 11, 2010 at 11:08 pm

Why Obama can’t let Terrorist be tried in Military Tribunal.
Like it or not he IS a MUSLIM! ! ! and if they arre found guilty in a
Military Count he would have to sign the death decree….He is not about
to do that nor can he as a Muslim brother. Why do you think he bowed to
the Saudi King….King is hight ranking Muslim in teh world. !
Now if terrorist are tried in Civil Count and found guilty, the court
namely the Judge is responsible for sigining Death decree…know you
know…..

James Downey// Feb 11, 2010 at 11:22 pm

When are people going to wake up ? There has been no Birth
Certificate other than the one copied in Kenya Hospital. Only 2
Certificates of Birthwere produced, not to be confused with a Birth
Certificate. They were both found to be bogus having boundries not used
until 1991.
Fellow High School students tell of Obama going to prayer with them
wrapped in a sarong…said he looked goffey…tall skinny ! He can recite
the Koran in arabic.
He’s not a citizen but if you don’t care that’s OK

What this obama startted on me as a canident was uncotional cruel
and unusail punishment breaking my right to privacey Iam a private
citzen. Allso has distubed all of the usa hooking vocies up and an
invisable voice but thats not my disabilty vocies, I was going to run
for persident but I have learend so of the require ments . When obma
gave stimuls instead of rasies I lost money because I would in the long
way over the years got more then 250 over the years with a raise one of
my speeches for those poeple on disabilty they would have benifitted
to.I would have cut the budget some were that wasnt really inportant
these poeple are poor and raised taxes on the rich pople taking away
goerge bush’s water fall and leaving most things of george the same to
save money in the budget